In search of good governance

In search of good governance

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): I find reflecting on old and new wisdom a very
enlightening exercise. It can provide a different view of our
national problems -- a view that makes the situation look more
soluble. The following is an example.

A friend of mine who is a professor of constitutional law went
to see a traditional healer to seek treatment for a member of his
family. He witnessed the entire healing process and could not
believe what he saw. The patient's right arm, which had been
stiff for several years, could move again, albeit very slowly. He
believed the patient had been basically cured.

As we all know, a traditional healer is usually a "wise man",
a person with a contemplative attitude toward life. Knowing this,
my friend engaged the healer in a conversation about our
country's current social problems.

The wise man talked about two human virtues: pinter (meaning
smart, intelligent or knowledgeable) and suci (meaning clean or
spotless, as a result of scrupulous living).

We can come out of our present turmoil, he said, only if the
nation is led by people who are both knowledgeable and spotless.

"A spotless person who is not knowledgeable is handicapped by
his ignorance. But he or she does not bring harm to anyone else.
On the other hand, a person who is smart but unscrupulous, will
cause suffering to many people."

I was dumbfounded. The wisdom in this simple observation rung
true in my heart. I immediately thought about the many smart
people who habitually violate rules without exhibiting the
slightest trace of remorse. I thought about the social damage
caused by these smart but unscrupulous people.

I thought of the victims, the millions of simple people who
always try to observe and obey the rules, but who are quite
ignorant about the manipulations and deceptions perpetrated by
smart but dishonest people around them.

These decent people suffer because they lack the knowledge
with which to distinguish dishonest intentions from honest
promises. Their naive decency is simply no match for the
intricately deceptive schemes set up to take advantage of them.

Following the logic behind this healer's old Javanese wisdom,
I began asking myself where were the Indonesian leaders who are
both intelligent and spotless, especially among the young
generation. Surely there must be young people among us who are
honest, knowledgeable and capable of perceiving and solving our
country's current and future problems.

In my view, people with such character traits are the ones who
could pull this country out of chaos and lead us toward a more
civilized and mature existence.

But where are such leaders?

At this point, I began to doubt whether this is the right way
to think about the future of our country. I began to think of
other wise sayings reminding us of the danger of relying too much
on individual leaders.

Thomas Jefferson, for instance, said in his Notes on the State
of Virginia that "Every government degenerates when entrusted to
the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore
are its only safe depositors." Abraham Lincoln said in a speech
in 1854 that "No man is good enough to govern another man without
that other's consent."

And Thomas Paine, in contrasting the concept of "society" and
"government", said that "Society in every state is a blessing,
but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil;
in its worst state an intolerable one."

Against the backdrop of such observations, the idea of "civil
society" as a force to control government from committing
arbitrary actions begins to make sense. This is new wisdom.

According to Philippe Schmitter, civil society provides a
"reservoir of resistance to arbitrary and tyrannical action".

Looking at the other side of the coin, Edward Shills said that
civil society is the place "where citizens learn the civic
manners that make opposition less rancorous".

And in general, scholars associate strong civil society with a
just and effective government.

According to Nancy Bermeo, the 1960s and 1970s showed that an
"overly active civil society can harm our chances for good
government".

It was on the basis of this experience that Gabriel Almond and
Sydney Verba advocated "civic culture" as the culture best suited
to democracy whose main characteristic is "a blend of activity
and passivity".

And according to Samuel Huntington, disorder is inevitable
when participation is expanded to include those who "failed to
cultivate the art of associating together".

This warning makes me very worried. I immediately thought of
the myriad of political parties that have been burgeoning in our
society.

A friend told me that as of Sept. 12, the country had 84
political parties and that four more were in the pipeline. What
if most of these parties were led by unscrupulous political
adventurers? And what if they fail to cultivate the art of
associating with each other?

Thus while it is clear that what we badly need is a group of
honest and intelligent leaders backed up by a strong civil
society, it is also equally clear that we have to work very hard
to make these dreams come true.

Meanwhile, the condition of our country is getting worse by
the day. According to United Nations Development Program, the
symptoms of government failure are "poor services, poor policy
capabilities, weak financial management, corruption, excessive or
arbitrary regulation and inappropriate allocation of resources".

Sound familiar?

Will our political parties be able to learn in time how to
communicate and associate with each other? And will we be able to
have a strong civil society in time to replace an inept
government with one capable of implementing the principles of
good governance?